Πολλές φορές έχω συναντήσει βιβλία που ασχολούνται με τη Βίβλο, ας τα ονομάσω θεολογικά ή θρησκευτικά, των οποίων οι συγγραφείς χρησιμοποιούν πολύ εξεζητημένη γλώσσα, εξαιρετικά δυσνόητη. Γλώσσα που «φιλοσοφίζει». Ένας τέτοιος συγγραφέας για παράδειγμα, είναι, κατά την άποψή μου, ο κος Χρήστος Γιανναράς (ο οποίος βέβαια είναι φιλόσοφος). Φυσικά, μπορεί εγώ απλώς να μην μπορώ να καταλάβω αυτή τη γλώσσα λόγω περιορισμένων διανοητικών ικανοτήτων, και να την στηλιτεύω άδικα. Ποιος ξέρει…
Ωστόσο, διαβάζοντας το βιβλίο του Wilbur Smith, Therefore Stand, (σελ. xviii), βρήκα την παρακάτω δήλωση η οποία μου έκανε μεγάλη εντύπωση, και την οποία θα ήθελα να μοιραστώ μαζί σας για να βγάλει ο καθένας τα δικά του συμπεράσματα. Γράφει ο Wilbur Smith:
It is with regret that I have been compelled, here and there, to enter into philosophical matters. I have never had any great passion for philosophy myself, and I believe that thousands of pages of philosophical literature contain nothing but the vain speculations of men, contradicting one another, and greatly varying within the lifetime of the philosophers themselves. But philosophy is exercising an enormous influence in contemporary thought, and it has been impossible to avoid some metaphysical subjects. It has especially been necessary to say something about the relation of Kant’s philosophy to religion, and the philosophic implications of the denial and affirmation of the doctrine of creation. Having said this much, I must here add two convictions of my own. The first is that I do not believe when this war is over, and young men return to a life of study and intellectual pursuits, that they are going to discuss the great truths of the Christian faith, either affirmatively or negatively, in the complex and difficult phraseologies of Kant and Hegel. It is paramount that we as Christians present some facts of the Christian faith, and the facts of science, as they relate to creation; and the evidence of history, as it relates to the resurrection of Christ. Though we do not flee from the arena of philosophical discussion, we insist that this is not the only area in which the Christian battle is to be fought. Unbelief can easily entangle young men in a philosophical, technical nomenclature, and make them only realize that they are in a fog. I do not find, e.g., that unbelief today is talking much about the evidence for the resurrection and the necessity for believing in God, as a Creator, yet it is back to these great inescapable realities that we need to go.
It has been the author’s deliberate intention to avoid an irritatingly technical phraseology. Though this volume concerns some of the profoundest problems that can ever engage the minds of men, he hopes that no reasonably educated person, with careful reading, will fail to understand a single sentence in these pages. One of the most justified criticisms of much of our modern theological and philosophical literature is that one frequently is not really sure what an author means. I regret that I have had to read thousands and thousands of lines which are not only vague and indefinite, but which, in themselves, cannot possibly communicate any vital truth. Let me illustrate what I mean. Canon Charles E. Raven, one of the recognized scholars of the Church of England today, in his new book, Science, Religion, and the Future, quotes with strong approval this sentence from the writings of the late Professor Oman: “When Oman summarized his conclusions in the words, ‘Reconciliation to the evanescent is revelation of the eternal and revelation of the eternal a higher reconciliation to the evanescent,’ he stated the principles of a theology in which there could be no ultimate antithesis between nature and grace or between science and religion, in which indeed the words of the scientist and the theologian were seen to be one and the same, their unity being sacramentally or incarnationally interpreted.” Now, frankly, I do not know what Oman meant when he talked about “the eternal a higher reconciliation to the evanescent.” And I do not know what Canon Raven means when he talks about the language of the scientist and theologian being incarnationally interpreted.” What is more, I do not think a lot of other people know what these phrases mean, and I am absolutely sure that even if they knew what the phrases meant, they would not, by using them, be able to persuade young men today of the truth and the reasonableness of the great facts of the Christian faith. It is this kind of language I have striven to avoid.